Shaw, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a Single Judge. On 14 March 2025 in the Crown Court at The City the Appellant, aged 46, was sentenced by Judge Pawson to a total of 4 years 4 months' imprisonment for attempted sexual offences against a decoy social media profile that the Appellant believed to be a 12-year-old. The lead offence (count 3) was attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity (underlying offence: section 8, Sexual Offences Act 2003), with concurrent sentences for attempts under sections 15 and 12 (counts 1 and 2). The Appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in the magistrates' court and received full one-third credit, giving a pre-plea sentence of 6 years 6 months. The communications occurred between 31 January and 20 February 2023; the Appellant was arrested on 20 February 2023, gave a "no comment" interview, and was not charged until July 2024. A pre-sentence report, a character reference from the Appellant's father, and the Appellant's own remorse letter were before the judge. The Appellant relied on heavy drinking and drug use to explain memory and behaviour, and had self-referred to agencies including Company A. Attorney Robinson appeared pro bono in the renewed application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, such as to justify grant of leave to appeal.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in taking a starting point of 8 years for a category 2A offence under the Sentencing Council guideline for section 8 offending.
3. Whether the fact the offending was an attempt only, short‑lived, allegedly out of character, or influenced by intoxication and voluntary desistance should have led to a materially lower starting point or greater reduction.
4. Whether the guideline was correctly applied in adjusting sentence downward (and by what extent) because no real child was present (victim was a decoy).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was wrong to adopt an 8-year starting point because the underlying offence was "inciting" (a conduct crime) rather than "causing" (a result crime) and the offence was an attempt only with no real child victim.
• The offending was short-lived, manifestly out of character, involved no attempt to meet a child, used real identifying details, and showed some voluntary desistance; these features warranted starting towards the bottom of the 2A range (5–6 years) and further reduction (12 months) for mitigation, yielding a sentence between 32 and 40 months.
• Reliance was placed on commentary concerning R v Reed [2021] EWCA Crim 572 (see [2022] Crim LR 56) to support the distinction between "conduct" and "result" offending and the appropriate approach to sentencing attempts involving decoys.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the Single Judge that the offending was properly placed in category 2A under the Sentencing Council guideline for section 8 offences because the Appellant incited what he believed to be a 12‑year‑old to penetrate her vagina and to record sexual images. Culpability was at the higher level (A) due to an element of grooming and because the Appellant encouraged filming. The judge applied the guideline's direction that, where activity is incited but does not take place, a downward adjustment at step two may be made but that only a very small reduction is usually appropriate where the offender would have carried out the offence but for the absence of a real child or late intervention.

The sentencing judge made a small reduction of 6 months from the category 2A starting point of 8 years to 7½ years to reflect the lack of an actual child victim, then reduced further to 6½ years for mitigation (remorse, mental health, absence of relevant previous convictions, some delay in charging, and referral to support agencies). With full one‑third credit for guilty plea the sentence became 4 years 4 months. The court accepted the probation officer's view that the messages did not read as if written while heavily intoxicated and observed steps taken by the Appellant to cover his tracks, indicating sober appreciation of consequences. The court concluded the judge's approach to categorisation, culpability assessment, and adjustment for absence of harm was correct and that the sentence properly reflected all three offences.

Holding and Implications

RENEWED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE REFUSED

Direct effect: the sentence imposed by Judge Pawson (total 4 years 4 months' imprisonment, and a sexual harm prevention order) stands. The court found no arguable ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Broader implication: no new precedent was established by this refusal; the court applied the Sentencing Council guideline and affirmed the Single Judge's conclusion.